Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffJonathan Aizen Date: Mar 14, 2003 5:05am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3s on the archive.

I personally like the following ideas brought up:

1) Make only portions of several tracks available. This goes along with the idea of these being previews only. No need for the full track.

2) Put a note in the ID3 tag with information on obtaining the full and lossless source. I wouldn't go so far as putting details page URLs in the ID3 because those could conceivaably change. I'd just put in the base URL for the LMA.

I'm not particularly in favor of making them 96kbs, particularly if only a portion of the track is made available. With higher bit-rate MP3s people could use the previews to compare sources, determine audience levels, and so on.

Those are just my thoughts. Feedback sought.

Jon

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Mar 14, 2003 5:28am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3s on the archive.

1) Make only portions of several tracks available. This goes along with the idea of these being previews only. No need for the full track

The reason i dont like the partial track idea is because if I want to browse for a new artist to listen to, I may not be sold on half the song. I downloaded a few tracks from SPP and UM and didnt like them, but i made that assesment after listening to the whole track. To chop off half or give only a minute or two wouldnt do the song justice, but to cut only a part of the end as sort of a watermark is assinine, IMHO. You can easily compramise and find one or two shorter songs.

As for source comparison, youre right, a higher bitrate would be necessary. But at the same time i would find it necessary to keep the entire song in tact to get a full scope of the comparison. Again, you can just encode a shorter tune or something of the sort.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: DianaTrees Date: Mar 14, 2003 5:56am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3s on the archive.

I have to agree. Though when I think of a sample, I'm figuring no more than a 10-15 second clip. That should give most folks an idea of what the band sounds like.

I have visited several band sites, but many don't put clips on the Web either. Makes it frustrating.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dgrayshn Date: Mar 14, 2003 5:58am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3s on the archive.

I'm curious to know why someone who doesn't tape or isn't part of said band thinks he is right over everyone else. (I'm sorry but the correct me if im wrong doesn't do it for me)

I have plenty of shows which I need to convert and add them to the archive. This takes time out of my life but I am doing it because i love it. I certainly feel that something I put in up to half a days work is something I have a say over how it is used. I would also like to point out that some bands are very specific over what type/quality shows they want being spread. I am personally involved with two bands on this archive and 3rd to be added soon. None of these 3 groups want mp3 sourced tracks or shows floating around. But if one was to take a sample track and cut off a litle bit then make that available i think they would be willing to compromise. But i see this becoming a bit too involved because I personally feel each band should be contacted.

but that is just me
-matt

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffchops11 Date: Mar 14, 2003 6:13am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3s on the archive.

just following along with the discussion. i'm just curious when peeps say that they(the tapers) or the band don't want their tracks converted into mp3 format. i'm personally not a big mp3 user.. but i know that there are more pieces of software than people in china that convert wavs or shns to mp3. and i've seen nearly every show i've ever downloaded floating around someplace as an mp3 source. i'm just thinking if people are going to convert them anyway.. might as well do it right here for the "preview" purposes. wow that was long winded and i don't think i got my point across. Try again: Bands dont want their stuff converted into mp3.. but it's going to happen.. it's legal.. it's common.. it's not preventable.. i don't think one track previews will hurt.

whew.. now that i'm done with that everyone have fun arguing :) i support whatever goes.. i like to "preview" a band by downloading a whole show, i don't think either 15 seconds or one track can do them justice anyway.

out like a fat kid in dodgeball

cheers
ed

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thoman8r Date: Mar 14, 2003 6:32am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3s on the archive.

Like I said in another post, *I* personally do not have a problem with a sample of a track of my show, or sometimes even an entire track being used for a specific purpose. Just a few weeks ago Dan at countingcrows.com asked to use an mp3 clip of a song from a show I taped and I was thrilled.
I just think this is an individual decision that should be left up to the taper. I believe we have earned that right, legal or not. Some people seem to disagree with me, and that's fine too. That is the great thing about this country.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffbleblanc Date: Mar 14, 2003 9:49pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3s and taper rights

I just think this is an individual decision that should be left up to the taper. I believe we have earned that right.

Humbly, I don't think we have.

The music belongs to the artists performing it, not to tapers dictating (yes, that's right, dictating) how everyone else has to download it. Taping isn't a right, and doesn't earn you anything other than the ability to bring your mic stand and deck into a show.

In this whole discussion about formats, I think many of you fail to remember WHY we are given the privelege to record these bands' performances - the bands realize that the recordings will make it out to your friends and their friends etc... and they hope that the tapers will be enthralled enough with their performance to WANT to share their music, no matter how it's done. Hand it out, tree it, put it on a server, blast it in your car with the windows down, make some minidiscs for your friend who doesn't use CD's cause she's always scratching em, bring it to the bar and ask the bartender to play 3 songs for you, give him $10 to do it, give him another $5 to turn it up, and let him have the discs for tomorrow night. :)

Maybe it's an assumption, but I believe most the bands here would feel that the tapers were missing the bus if they found that you were requiring all traders and fans to adopt to the format you like best. That's like giving a kid an ice-cream cone and telling the him or her how to eat it.

We didn't get into this hobby for lossless audio, we got in it because we dig music. MP3 isn't the best sounding format, but it's a lot more convenient and gets people involved. If we allow MP3 samples, it brings more folks to the bands here, it opens the door for them to learn about SHN, FLAC and lossless audio, and could encourage more folks to follow our bands. Don't you think that's what the artists want? Isn't that more important than what you, as a taper, want? (and why isn't that what you want?)

Lastly, adding a few MP3 samples won't eliminate the SHN/FLAC from this site. If you don't like them, we sure as hell aren't telling you that you HAVE to try the MP3's before you download the SHN's. The anti-mp3 folks can go about their business and ignore them. If the band wants to get involved in formats and declines on MP3, the site will obviously respect that.

My 2 cents are on the table, I end my rant.

-Brad

This post was modified by bleblanc57 on 2003-03-15 05:49:06

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kwaved Date: Mar 15, 2003 2:21pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3s and taper rights


To me once a recording is seeded then it enters public domain. Tapers that add things like "don't convert to MP3" in their info files are quite presumptuous, what I (or anyone) does with a seed, freely traded, is no ones business but my (their) own.

I agree the threat of SHN>MP3>AUDIO>WAV>SHN is something to be concerned about but if one has a good info file from reliable traders/tapers then this is a mostly mitigated problem.

With seeds with source info like ?>DAT>?>?>AUDIO CDR>?>SHN then caveat emptor. If it sounds good to you then fine, but for "serious" traders this is a warning sign that any number of problems might exist with the seed.

Tapers definitely do not "own" their seeds once they enter the trading community, if anyone "owns" the seed it is the band. With seeds on archive.org the content is definitely in the public domain and, IMO, it is up to the band and the downloaders to do with as they please.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Mar 15, 2003 9:12pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: LMA is not public domain

seeds on archive.org the content is definitely in the public domain

No, no, no, this is not the case! The artists here do hold copyrights and have just granted us limited permission to enjoy it here.

I found this useful reference link:
http://www.pdinfo.com/

There's stuff about recordings there, too.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kwaved Date: Mar 16, 2003 2:44am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: LMA is not public domain

My apologies for the misuse of the word "public domain" ... I understand completely that the artist retains their rights to the recordings, but the taper, IMO, has no rights explicit or implicit. Any seed once freely traded can be manipulated, compressed, equalized, etc. regardless of the wishes of the taper/seeder to the contrary. Of course common courtesy and the golden rule do apply.

This post was modified by kwaved on 2003-03-16 10:44:05

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Mar 16, 2003 8:17am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: LMA is not public domain

the taper, IMO, has no rights explicit or implicit

But do your and Erich's assertions jibe with the comments on these help sheets, for instance?
http://www.pdinfo.com/record.htm
http://www.copyright.gov/register/sound.html

Interesting issue!

This post was modified by hamilton on 2003-03-16 16:17:32

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Mar 16, 2003 9:36am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: LMA is not public domain

But do your and Erich's assertions jibe with the comments on these help sheets, for instance?
http://www.pdinfo.com/record.htm


This site details the public domain information regarding a sound recording that is created by the person creating the sound, though. I dont see how it applies to live music recording thats under a very enclosed set of policies.

http://www.copyright.gov/register/sound.html

copywriting the sound recording is to prevent others from claiming ownership of the particular recording and thereby using it for profit. an example would be copywriting my studio recording of my album so i can make sure its never used in a comercial. But as was mentioned this isnt applied to the music on the recording though, so i can make a new version of some songs to use for said comercial if i want. I do not know how the taping policies of the bands would interfier with someone doing this to a live recording, but im almost possitive it would. example, i tape a dmb show, and 'copywrite' it and all. Nissan wants to use Tripping Billies from that show to promote their new Nissan Frathouse SUV. I doubt my 'copywriting' the sound recording will override the bands decision as to whether or not it can be used for said commercial, especialy since these recordings are made under explicit conditions. If i could do that, what stops me from AUD recording the state of the union address and using Bush's voice to promote Budweiser? A record company owning the sound recordings of my first 4 albums, thereby overriding my say on whether it can be used for a greatest hits would be another example of how this copywrite would come to play.

The biggest thing, i think, that seperates these live recordings from these copywrite laws too is that despite them being allowed to be created, theyre still "unautherized" recordings, at least im almost sure theyre still considered such. Again, if it wasnt, what would stop me from aud recording a studio session seperately so i can market through the record company a greatest hits album? that would surely go to court in an instant.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Mar 14, 2003 6:35am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3s on the archive.

I'm curious to know why someone who doesn't tape or isn't part of said band thinks he is right over everyone else. (I'm sorry but the correct me if im wrong doesn't do it for me)

I have plenty of shows which I need to convert and add them to the archive. This takes time out of my life but I am doing it because i love it. I certainly feel that something I put in up to half a days work is something I have a say over how it is used. I would also like to point out that some bands are very specific over what type/quality shows they want being spread. I am personally involved with two bands on this archive and 3rd to be added soon. None of these 3 groups want mp3 sourced tracks or shows floating around. But if one was to take a sample track and cut off a litle bit then make that available i think they would be willing to compromise. But i see this becoming a bit too involved because I personally feel each band should be contacted.


I have plenty of shows i converted from folks that have dissapeared off the face of the earth as well. I dont tape, but im responsible for a lot of the shows for one particular artist here. I take exactly the same amount of time converting as you do. I dont tape, but these shows become my seeds. I have no right to dictate how theyre used because its NOT MY MUSIC. Its not yours either. If youre part of the band, then please, dictate all you want. If youre not, then you have no say, period. Its a misconception on the tapers part to say that they have the right to their recordings once they are released to the public, because they dont.

Personaly i think its silly to contact each band for MP3 permission, because seriously, whats their logic going to be? "um... the lossless show is right next to it and its not harming the trading pool... but this random guy that taped the show said no, so sorry guys, its not up to us anymore". Really now. No one is putting up MP3 shows in full anyway, so i doubt the bands youe involved with will mind a sampler, and if they do its illogical to the nth degree. and watermarking the shows with a 15 second cut is just stupid. whats the point? so that people who trade discs arent going to burn it? you mean you honestly think they'll download the entire show yet replace d01t06 with that mp3? or put in on a mix and try to sell it? i mean, whats the logic?

You have an expensive hobby. We appreciate that. If youre not in the band though, its not your say, and that unfortunatly the truth, unless you can find a law that claims otherwise.

This post was modified by Erich on 2003-03-14 14:35:49

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Mar 14, 2003 10:09am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3s on the archive.

and that unfortunatly the truth

Er, you'll want to reedit that phrase to read, "and that's my working hypothesis"... ;)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thoman8r Date: Mar 14, 2003 5:31am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3s on the archive.

Good idea Jonathan, but I still think this should be done on a show to show basis. Some tapers might not want any mp3s made of any part of their shows period, and I feel that their wishes should be respected.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Mar 14, 2003 5:38am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3s on the archive.

Good idea Jonathan, but I still think this should be done on a show to show basis. Some tapers might not want any mp3s made of any part of their shows period, and I feel that their wishes should be respected.

but see, this is what i mean. What right does the taper have to a show thats not even his own intelectual property and has become public domain through free trade? none, unless im missing some clause somewhere that circumvents the bands ownership. If a taper cant handle 2 song previews made for the sake of source comparison or show browsing, thats just rediculous. Honestly I think a lot of the reason the gigantic ******DO NOT ENCODE TO MP3 OR YOUR TESTICLES WILL WITHER OR YOUR PUSSY WILL ROT AND FALL IN THE TOILET****** messages are put on the txt files are to assert the fact that the taper has a bigger ego than the non tapers. People that understand that their recording is going to get MP3ed for one reason or another, like me sending an MP3 to a friend (uh oh!), dont put the testicle damning caution on their source files or at least append it with the notion that trading MP3s is bad but encoding for personal use is not.

[/rant]

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thoman8r Date: Mar 14, 2003 6:24am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3s on the archive.

First of all, just because something is freely available does not mean its public domain. Second, I know a lot of tapers who copyright their tapes (you can copyright the recording, obviously the musicians own copyrights of the songs themselves), so your assertion that they have no rights to them is off base. A lot of tapers do this, btw, not because of ego but because it gives them legal recourse if people try to profit of their recordings (via ebay or any other matter).
You're entitled to your opinion but what you're not entitled to is dictating how someone who spent hours taping, converting, and posting a show for the community to enjoy should allow his tape to be distributed.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Mar 14, 2003 6:38am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3s on the archive.

First of all, just because something is freely available does not mean its public domain. Second, I know a lot of tapers who copyright their tapes (you can copyright the recording, obviously the musicians own copyrights of the songs themselves), so your assertion that they have no rights to them is off base. A lot of tapers do this, btw, not because of ego but because it gives them legal recourse if people try to profit of their recordings (via ebay or any other matter).
You're entitled to your opinion but what you're not entitled to is dictating how someone who spent hours taping, converting, and posting a show for the community to enjoy should allow his tape to be distributed.


please show me how this is done, give me an example, and show me any legal ramifications if i do not adhere to this "copywrite". Im seriously interested. I doubt that the disclaimer holds the same legal bearing as a terms of service agreement, but im very interested to see the process that a taper goes through just to make sure someone cant preview a track on a site dedicated to lossless trading.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thoman8r Date: Mar 14, 2003 7:46am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3s on the archive.

Honestly, I have no clue how it's done, as I've never gone to the trouble. I do know that it can be done, and from talking to my sister (who is an attorney), it's not a real easy thing to do (I guess it takes a lot of time). I don't know the legal ramifications, and I would assume most tapers who do it do so to prevent bootleggers from selling their shows, as I said above, not to keep people from spreading mp3s. My point was that you claimed tapers have no legal rights to their tapes, and this is not true in some cases.
And I will reiterate, just because something is "free" does not mean it is public domain. Linux is free and it is definitely not public domain. Try to sell Linux or distribute it outside of the GNU GPL and see how quickly you get sued.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Mar 14, 2003 7:59am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: MP3s on the archive.

ok, maybe my terminology isnt exactly accurate, but hopefuly you get what im saying. And obviously you can protect things from being sold when the seller has no rights to that. thats basic copywrite protection, but i think thats the bands duty and not the taper. Whatever though, if the taper prevents illegal selling too then more power to them. But these recordings are technicaly protected by law regardless of what the tapers do to further protect them from illegal selling. Thats not the same as the taper saying im not allowed to convert to MP3 for whatever reason, in fact thats totaly different. I honestly dont think that a taper can get legaly prevent the encoding of their shows, and if they can, it seems the effort involved would be so ridiculously stupid considering not even highly protected studio recordings can be prevented from being encoded.

It was mentioned that asking the taper would be a curtosy, and i agree. I dont feel it a necessary one, but its a gesture saying that the fans respect the tapers important role in that shows quality. I feel the line is drawn though when someone claims to have sole rights to how that recording gets traded within the defined perameters of a bands trading policy (as in not resale, which is obviously illegal).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Mar 14, 2003 9:50am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Rights and things

Erich, see http://creativecommons.org/ for a few (not all, I guess) recent examples of how people can tailor their ownership rights to things, "some rights reserved". I'm neither a lawyer nor experienced in this area, just providing a pointer.

Interestingly, the 2 musicians interviewed in a prominent feature at the CC site discuss MP3 re their work (and are obviously on the other side of the coin from the people we've been discussing). Then one says, "...as a suggestion to the good people involved in this endeavor, it would be nice if this license could be applied specifically to a file format."

BTW, I see CC also has a "sampler CD":
http://creativecommons.org/extras/cd

This post was modified by hamilton on 2003-03-14 17:50:35